Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 8405445" data-attributes="member: 7017304">There are games (and I think DnD variant rules) where this is built into the initiative system, although it doesn't quite work as you described:DM: Combat has started, let's roll initiative (orcs win, then healer, then fighter)T3a = Healer's Player: decides what they'll do. Since their character reacted the slowest, other characters can react to what the Healer is doing - ergo they must declare first, to represent needing to choose to act without being able to see what others are doing first. They can decide to hold their action, usually, but with restrictions. For example, they can say &quot;I'll cast a spell&quot;, or they can say &quot;I'll heal the fighter if he's hurt.&quot; IN the second case, if the fighter doesn't get hurt the turn is lost (but not the spell slot, at least)T2a = Fighter Player: They know what they healer is doing (since they're a little faster on the uptake) but if they don't want to hold the action, they need to decide without knowing exactly what the orcs are up to. T1a = DM: decides what orcs will do, having knowledge of the players' choices since the orcs are quite alert today.T1 = DM resolves the orc's actionT2 = Fighter player resolves the fighter's action. Some variables might be decides here, ie the fighter could have declared they'll attack the nearest orc, which isn't set until after the orcs have all movedT3 = Healer players resolves healer action.While this mostly fixes the issue with the orcs charging into a room scenario, it creates a new set of edge cases - because the underlying issue is taking turns, which creates ludonarritive dissonance. (Unless you can justify turn-taking in the fiction, which is at least a very different model that how dnd works.) The only &quot;solution&quot; to that would be not taking turns at all - so the practical answer is still find a system that works well enough for your personal suspension of disbelief.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmartkdr2, post: 8405445, member: 7017304"] There are games (and I think DnD variant rules) where this is built into the initiative system, although it doesn't quite work as you described: DM: Combat has started, let's roll initiative (orcs win, then healer, then fighter) T3a = Healer's Player: decides what they'll do. Since their character reacted the slowest, other characters can react to what the Healer is doing - ergo they must declare first, to represent needing to choose to act without being able to see what others are doing first. They can decide to hold their action, usually, but with restrictions. For example, they can say "I'll cast a spell", or they can say "I'll heal the fighter if he's hurt." IN the second case, if the fighter doesn't get hurt the turn is lost (but not the spell slot, at least) T2a = Fighter Player: They know what they healer is doing (since they're a little faster on the uptake) but if they don't want to hold the action, they need to decide without knowing exactly what the orcs are up to. T1a = DM: decides what orcs will do, having knowledge of the players' choices since the orcs are quite alert today. T1 = DM resolves the orc's action T2 = Fighter player resolves the fighter's action. Some variables might be decides here, ie the fighter could have declared they'll attack the nearest orc, which isn't set until after the orcs have all moved T3 = Healer players resolves healer action. While this mostly fixes the issue with the orcs charging into a room scenario, it creates a new set of edge cases - [B]because the underlying issue is taking turns, which creates ludonarritive dissonance.[/B] (Unless you can justify turn-taking in the fiction, which is at least a very different model that how dnd works.) The only "solution" to that would be not taking turns at all - so the practical answer is still find a system that works well enough for your personal suspension of disbelief. [/QUOTE]

Verification